Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!gondor.psu.edu!schwartz
From: schwartz@gondor.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: SysV lp spooler a security hole
Message-ID: <2916@psuvax1.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 12:58:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2916
Posted: Thu Sep 10 12:58:24 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 09:00:59 EDT
References: <313@pvab.UUCP> <1284@mhres.mh.nl> <1986@kitty.UUCP> <214@ho7cad.ATT.COM>
Sender: netnews@psuvax1.psu.edu
Reply-To: schwartz@gondor.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz)
Organization: Penn State University, University Park, PA
Lines: 17
Summary: Batch processing...the OS of the future.
Xref: mnetor comp.unix.questions:3986 comp.bugs.sys5:204

In article <214@ho7cad.ATT.COM> wjc@ho5cad.ATT.COM writes:
>To take this  a step  further  than  Larry's suggestions,  there's  no
>reason you have to limit this to  output devices.  You  can use the lp
>spooler to take care of anything that you want to happen in a serially
>controlled manner.

% setenv HUMOR medium

Yup, and you could call it batch processing.  While i agree that 
there is probably a need for a tool like this in unix  (here at
PSU there is a locally generated one called `batch') it strikes me
as funny to tout it as a feature of the unix spooler, considering
that unix was designed to be and stands out for being a highly interactive 
environment.


-- Scott Schwartz            schwartz@gondor.psu.edu